I'm not a fan of this idea. The IDE and the prover should be only
loosely-coupled, with a clearly-defined communication protocol between
them.

A plugin introduces a tight coupling between these components. Yes,
it's only a plugin, so the scope of the coupling is limited. But it
still seems undesirable to me.

-- Paul

On Thu, May 5, 2016 at 4:58 PM, Clément Pit--Claudel
<clement....@gmail.com> wrote:
> Not entirely clear to me :) I think there'd be some amount of design work 
> there as well.
>
> On 2016-05-05 10:39, Paul A. Steckler wrote:
>> With that toploop plugin installed on the coqtop side installed, what
>> does Proof General see from its shell?
>>
>> -- Paul
>>
>> On Thu, May 5, 2016 at 4:34 PM, Clément Pit--Claudel
>> <clement....@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Hi Paul,
>>>
>>> Here's another approach that I forgot to mention: we could build a separate 
>>> Emacs toploop as a plugin, which would inherit most of CoqIDE's toploop 
>>> (you know that I have mixed feelings about that, but it may be the most 
>>> pragmatic approach).
>>>
>>> Clément.
>>>
>>> On 2016-05-05 10:17, Clément Pit--Claudel wrote:
>>>> Hi Paul,
>>>>
>>>> You could indeed modify PG to handle the first prompt differently, or even 
>>>> Coq.
>>>> In the long run, though, I don't think the approach is sustainable. PG is 
>>>> very much hardcoded to expect one prompt for every query it sends: thus, 
>>>> even though you may get something working pretty quickly by hacking around 
>>>> this prompt thing, I think we'll see more breakages with every evolution 
>>>> of the new protocol.
>>>>
>>>> Here's a slightly different idea. Right now, PG adds an abstraction layer 
>>>> on top of a REPL model. What you could do is reimplement the same 
>>>> abstraction, but on top of Coq's new asynchronous model. Concretely, my 
>>>> suggestion is to make a separate library to talk to Coq's new API, which 
>>>> would provide the same interface (proof-shell-invisible-command, 
>>>> proof-shell-ready-prover, proof-shell-invisible-cmd-get-result, etc.).
>>>>
>>>> I think this would make your life easier. You would:
>>>>
>>>> 1. Identify a small (hopefully) collection of functions that 
>>>> Coq-ProofGeneral actually depends on (some sort of semi-explicit 
>>>> interface, essentially).
>>>> 2. Implement support for these functions using Coq's new API model
>>>> 3. Modify the current implementation to call these functions or the legacy 
>>>> ones depending on the version of Coq.
>>>>
>>>> What do you think?
>>>> Clément.
>>>>
>>>> On 2016-05-05 09:48, Paul A. Steckler wrote:
>>>>> I've already mentioned the issue described below to Clément Pit-Claudel
>>>>> and Pierre Courtieu, maybe others on this list have thoughts on it.
>>>>>
>>>>> Proof General is welded to a model of receiving prompts from a prover.
>>>>> After it's received a prompt, PG can send something back to the
>>>>> prover.
>>>>>
>>>>> The ideslave (politically incorrectly-named) mode in Coq, developed
>>>>> for CoqIDE abandons that model. In that mode, Coq just waits for XML
>>>>> from an IDE, without first offering a prompt.
>>>>>
>>>>> In ideslave mode, it seems that Coq sends back responses wrapped in
>>>>> <value> tags, so you can use that as a pseudo-prompt. Hmm, I think the
>>>>> prompt regexp would have to look for both the closing tag, and the
>>>>> single-tag version, <value ... />.
>>>>>
>>>>> Even with that, there's still a bootstrapping issue, because there's
>>>>> no prompt to s start with. I could probably modify PG to not look for
>>>>> that first prompt.
>>>>>
>>>>> Is there some good way to handle this?
>>>>>
>>>>> -- Paul
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> ProofGeneral-devel mailing list
>>>>> ProofGeneral-devel@inf.ed.ac.uk
>>>>> http://lists.inf.ed.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/proofgeneral-devel
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> ProofGeneral-devel mailing list
>>>> ProofGeneral-devel@inf.ed.ac.uk
>>>> http://lists.inf.ed.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/proofgeneral-devel
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> ProofGeneral-devel mailing list
>>> ProofGeneral-devel@inf.ed.ac.uk
>>> http://lists.inf.ed.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/proofgeneral-devel
>>
>
_______________________________________________
ProofGeneral-devel mailing list
ProofGeneral-devel@inf.ed.ac.uk
http://lists.inf.ed.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/proofgeneral-devel

Reply via email to